On Friday 14 January 2005 17:12, Dave Cramer wrote:
> I see no point in either of these as the solution is simple... Don't
> ignore errors.
This is a misrepresentation of the other side's argument.
I mentioned this thread earlier in this discussion:
Consider, in particular,
The guy is most emphatically _not_ ignoring errors. Wouldn't you
The point of the solutions that Oliver proposed is not hard to see. I
can write code that works unchanged with Oracle, Sybase, DB2,
MySQL/InnoDB, Firebird and god knows what else. As soon as I throw
PostgreSQL into the mix, I need to handle a radically different
transaction semantics all of a sudden. Oliver's proposal obviates the
need for special-casing PostgreSQL in my application code, albeit
admittedly at the expense of incurring a measurable performance hit.
Which is fine with me, as long as I'm informed of the tradeoff.
In response to
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: j.random.programmer||Date: 2005-01-14 23:01:42|
|Subject: Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?) -- commit fails silently|
|Previous:||From: Dave Cramer||Date: 2005-01-14 22:12:16|
|Subject: Re: Weird behavior in transaction handling (Possible bug ?)|